This work presents a global emission dataset of CO₂ and co-emitted species including NO_x, SO₂, CO and CH₄ for power plants in 2018. The database assigned more than 16000 individual facilities with geographical locations. Temporal proxies and vertical spatial distribution factors were also provided. The data is publicly available to the community and can be used to support atmospheric modeling activities. Overall, the manuscript is written in a logical way. But lots of details regarding how the raw data is reported, how the gap filling is done, and how to harmonize various information are not clarified. On the other hand, authors should point out the assumptions clearly especially when “lending” information from one power plant to another. I suggest re-visiting the methodology section carefully with clearer statement. The figures and tables also need to be updated.

The detailed comments are listed below.

1. Line 10: can you explain why using “catalogue” instead of “inventory” or just “dataset”?
2. Line 13: what emission ratios? It’ll bring confusion to readers when you mention “ratios” in an abstract but not specify what it is.
3. Line 14: as my understanding, the temporal and vertical distribution profiles are NOT facility-specific. It’s shared within a country. Please revise this.
4. Line 51: can you add comparisons with GPED since they are bottom-up emission estimates at a facility-level.
5. Section 2.1: I’m confused by the statement of “selection of facilities”. Where are the raw data reported to and what’s your criteria of selecting the data? Please specify.
6. Line 80 – 90: Lots of information but not clear. Can you draw a global map with the data sources labeled? Or prepare a table?
7. Line 80 – 90: Which year of these data are available?
8. Line 95: what's the criterion when there are conflicts between different dataset? For example, how do you know two power plants are the same between two dataset? What if different capacities are reported for the “same” power plants from different dataset?
9. Line 135 – 140: emission controls of NOx and SOx on power plants are widely applied over developed countries like the U.S. and developing countries like China. How do you take the emission control into consideration in your emission estimation?
10. Line 150 – 180: please specify the assumption when gap-filling the emission values step-by-step.
11. Line 192: The ratios can vary significantly by countries and fuel type due to pollution abatement strategies. It can introduce large uncertainties when assuming each country can share the same SOx/CO2 ratios for all power plant units.
12. Line 235: So, the temporal profiles are not facility-specific. It’s country and fuel-dependent.
13. Line 321: this dataset doesn’t include hydropower, right?
14. Figure 5: please zoom in a little bit of the map (duplicate US and East Asia maps are shown). The circles are not clear. I suggest using colors to scale the annual emissions, but with various symbols (rectangles, circles, etc.) to denote the fuel type.
15. Line 433: please double check this, or give references.
16. Figure 10: the figure is hard to understand.

This study constructed a global inventory of carbon and pollutant emissions from over 16,000 power plants in 2018, utilizing multiple data sources. Such work is foundational and significant. Despite the author's detailed methodological explanations and my agreement with his very good work on time allocation, I still have two methodological concerns:

1. I have strong doubts about the accuracy of air pollutant emissions at the power plant level due to lack of data sources. The article attempts to fill the data gaps by using the proportional changes between pollutants and CO₂. While this method may be reliable for CO and CH₄, it may encounter problems when applied to SO₂ and NOx due to variations in air pollution control levels. Need to explain more or switch to a better approach.

1. The estimation of NOx and SO₂ emissions in regions outside the United States and Europe based on the proportion of CO₂ and pollutants in the eGRID database overlooks the differences in pollution control in different regions. Applying air pollution control levels from the United States to other regions may result in significant deviations.

Other minor concerns include:

1. The resolution of Figure 5 is too low, making it difficult to interpret.

1. It would be beneficial to include comparisons of other pollutants in Figure 6, particularly NOx and SO₂.

1. Can the current data sources and methods support the extension of the analysis to multiple years?

1. The handling of temporal allocation methods is commendable.